Alaska Airlines explosive decompression 1/5/23

Didn't the FAA make boeing use a door that has to seal without the use of pressure from the inside like a cork? In turn, allowing a door to yeet itself midflight like this?
 
Anyone know if the fuselage on the Max9 is the same as the -900? I'm scheduled outbound -900 and return Max9 next week. Both seat maps are the same. They swapped the -900 in for the Max9 on the outbound.

Sent from my SM-S901U1 using Tapatalk
 
CRQFlier said:
Anyone know if the fuselage on the Max9 is the same as the -900? I'm scheduled outbound -900 and return Max9 next week. Both seat maps are the same. They swapped the -900 in for the Max9 on the outbound.

Sent from my SM-S901U1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The Max 9 is different from the -900, but they both have the same issue I would suspect as they both have the "optional" rear door.
 
Realize the engines are different. Wondering about the fuselage. I "thought" they were different but the seating is identical.

Sent from my SM-S901U1 using Tapatalk
 
Very helpful, thank you.
flyingron said:
OK, here's the story on the "door" apparently. The airframe is designed with another set of exits between the over-wing and rearmost door. If you run your 737-900 in all economy configurations, you need that door to meet the evacuation requirements. If you run in a multi-class arrangement, you've reduced the passenger count to a point where it is not needed and it is replaced with a non-operable plug. This means you can maintain the seatpitch through that area where the door would have been.
Click to expand...
 
Lndwarrior said:
Huh? Not sure your conclusion at this time, makes sense. Many engineering failures are a result of cycle times.
Click to expand...

The point I was attempting to make was that this apparently was not an engineering failure. Interior images of the opening reveal undamaged lugs, indicating that not all (if any) of the mounting bolts had been installed. This apparently was a problem concerning Boeing's manufacturing process, not the engineering process. I wonder how many pressurization/depressurization cycles this airplane had undergone prior to the accident flight.
 
I have flown on this size Alaskan Boeing Max several times in the last couple of years, so the cycle times should have run out on them a long time ago, compared to the 2 months this plane has been in service.

Someone has to have placed the latching device in the wrong position for this aircraft to fail at this early a time. It has to be intentional, or stupidity.
 
geezer said:
Someone has to have placed the latching device in the wrong position for this aircraft to fail at this early a time. It has to be intentional, or stupidity.
Click to expand...
This was a dummy plug that should have been bolted in place, not a latching door.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
This was a dummy plug that should have been bolted in place, not a latching door.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would imagine that the actual emergency exits are hooked up to some sort of door warning system.
 
Clickbait. If “everyone is alright” it wasn’t an explosive decompression. :stirpot:
 
Anyone else a tad concerned about the frantic Pilot's voice on the radio with ATC?...not sure "WE'RE ABOUT TO GO DOWN" might have been the best choice of words...

 
skyking3286 said:
South Carolina product?
Click to expand...

Hush your mouth trash talking them Carolina workers! :oops:

From the Boeing website: "Boeing’s 737 factory at the Renton, Wash., site leads the industry as the most efficient airplane factory in the world."

They go on to say, "More than 7,000 Next-Generation 737 airplanes were produced in Renton from 1997 to 2019. In 2015, the factory began producing the 737 MAX family of airplanes."


We get to build the 787 Dreamliner:

weareboeingsc.com

Boeing South Carolina

The Future is Built Here in South Carolina. BSC is the only place in the world where the full cycle of 787 Dreamliner production takes place.
weareboeingsc.com weareboeingsc.com
 
Shawn said:
Anyone else a tad concerned about the frantic Pilot's voice on the radio with ATC?...not sure "WE'RE ABOUT TO GO DOWN" might have been the best choice of words...

Click to expand...

To me she was just emphatically telling ATC that she wanted lower immediately.

And how thick headed were the Pdx controllers? How many times did they tell them this was an emergency? The controllers weren’t the most helpful IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Anyone else a tad concerned about the frantic Pilot's voice on the radio with ATC?...not sure "WE'RE ABOUT TO GO DOWN" might have been the best choice of words...
Click to expand...
I heard "we would like to go down" IOW requesting a lower altitude. The frantic sound is from talking into an oxygen mask. It makes communication difficult enough just in the simulator.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of sounding like Alvin and the Chipmunks, a UPT classmate of mine used to make a habit of flying around "gangloaded" (emergency Px). Mild mannered guy as they came (Minneh-soo-tah cat), a weird one to be sure. I'm sure eventually they told him to KIO that crutchy nonsense and sack up on the mask's breathing restriction (emer px is a legit hindrance to comm clarity). At any rate, sole requested CV-22s, granted! :rofl:
 
Bill said:
Lucky the door didn’t impact any of the empennage control surfaces on it’s departure. Also lucky the door didn’t harm anyone on the ground.
Click to expand...
Lots of luck was involved here… no doubt about it!
 
MauleSkinner said:
Clickbait. If “everyone is alright” it wasn’t an explosive decompression. :stirpot:
Click to expand...
Explosive decompression is not defined by the well being of the passengers.
That said, at the altitude this reportedly happened (16,000 feet), I doubt they were at a psid that would have been truly explosive.
 
Kritchlow said:
Explosive decompression is not defined by the well being of the passengers.
That said, at the altitude this reportedly happened (16,000 feet), I doubt they were at a psid that would have been truly explosive.
Click to expand...
I think the “ Stirring the Pot” emoji is a clue to his intention. ;)
 
You guys are being too harsh. It's a 737 Max...all of the parts aren't supposed to work, we've already been through that. And on a more serious note, glad everyone is OK.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Yet was strong enough to completely remove the upper seat back cushion from the seat, as well as the shirt from a nearby child.
Click to expand...
Those seat cushions are attached to the frame with Velcro.


geezer said:
I would hope that the Boeing employee(s) who assembled this door in the fuselage will be identified and fired.

Work assignments and time reports will point the way, and there should be an actual signature/initials on an assembly completion form.

If it is an A&P, the FAA should revoke the certificate.

We do not need this person working on any class of aircraft.

It may be that the original fitting was correctly done, and a crew installing the interior unlatched the door while doing their work, but that should also be possible to determine, and blame properly documented. Aircraft assembly at the factory is well documented, and the NTSB/Boeing inspections should determine whether the latches were partially secure, with the interior in place, or they were never properly installed.

This specific Boeing was delivered to Alaska early in November, so two months of flights before failure.
Click to expand...
dmspilot said:
It has been posted elsewhere that it's a fuselage plug installed at the factory. This is almost surely 100% on Boeing.
Click to expand...
Tantalum said:
Fairly new plane too.. right? October or November? Gotta say McDonnell, I mean Boeing, ain't inspiring confidence!
Click to expand...
The fuselage was built by Spirit AeroSystems, not Boeing.

Yes, Boeing has the ultimate responsibility. Where the fault lies and what inspection regimens were supposed to be implemented remains to be seen.
 
Shawn said:
Anyone else a tad concerned about the frantic Pilot's voice on the radio with ATC?...not sure "WE'RE ABOUT TO GO DOWN" might have been the best choice of words...
Click to expand...
Having a decompression and using the mask during an event does add some adrenaline to the system. I noticed it was a bit of excitement on her part, but will give it a pass. As others have pointed out, her choice of words were different than what you heard.

I think it was more interesting that she was asking (either on her own or by request of the PF) for lower rather than telling ATC they were starting their descent. But, they got the job done. I love the fact the FA was walking around doing pre-landing checks of the pax. That can give the pax some peace of mind.

Once the masks were working for both the crew and pax and after they knew the plane was flying just fine with only CABIN ALT (or whatever Boeing uses for the 737-9) showing on the panel, a crew’s next task becomes not rushing to get the plane on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Explosive decompression is not defined by the well being of the passengers.
That said, at the altitude this reportedly happened (16,000 feet), I doubt they were at a psid that would have been truly explosive.
Click to expand...
every definition of explosive decompression I can find includes lung damage.
 
Last edited:
How about rapid decompression…bordering on explosive since parts left the aircraft…
 
for referencing this event in future, it might help us if the date in the title was corrected.
 
Last I heard, FAA Grounded all of them. Probably for at least a one time inspection. That will require removing the interior panels to inspect the latches on those aircraft where this is not an active emergency door.
 
An amazing post on Reddit (can’t find the link) on what it’s like to fly the max:

How’s *this* for a write up on what it’s like to fly the Boeing Max…

I fly 737 NGs and Maxes. It's complicated. I honestly like flying the Max for the same reason it's nice to drive a brand new car. Maxes have a lot more power out of the LEAP engines, wifi actually works, I like having a mic PTT on the glare shield, the VSD is great, it's quieter, cleaner, 4 screens that show more info is nicer than 5 small screens on an NG, it has some nicer features on the weather radar, and they don't have that stupid PSEU light that indicates a 'return to gate' issue, but only the jumpseater can see it. Every 737 variant (-700,-800,-900, MX-8, MX-9) flies differently anyway, but Maxes are fun to hand fly. 700s are like RJs and 900s feel really heavy.

However, it's very obvious that the Max is like an ipad emulator of a 1970s pinball machine. It's obvious they went way out of their way to keep the type rating. Manual bleeds and anti-ice, a recall system instead of ACARS, etc.

The FMC has glitches, like at the end of a STAR, if there's a vector leg, as soon as it transitions to that leg segment it'll cause both FMCs to do a full reset. Procedurally we have to delete the vector leg. We also can't do anything better than a 0.3 RNP approach because it too, is a workaround for a software issue. You also have to really babysit the FMC in VNAV because it lags. I also suspect they didnt properly calculate how long it takes to bring the engines to idle in retard mode (that's the technical term, I'm being serious), so if you dont fight the auto throttles and bring the thrust levers to idle then hold them, you'll have to ride the speed brakes the whole way or it'll blow every altitude on the STAR. Sometimes it's 'ok', like if there's no wind or you program a bunch of your own workarounds in the perf page, but you really have to watch it.

You have to manually operate the anti ice until the TAT is <-40C, but if you accidentally leave it on, it could cause serious engine damage. So one more thing to obsess over while getting vectored all over New York on departure or if you cruise in the 30s in the summer.

The speed brakes are too small, but there's a system that can automatically deploy them on final to keep a nose high landing attitude, so I'm actually glad they're too small in case of a LAM malfunction.

Speaking of landing attitude, a Max-9 is a totally different animal than a -700. We only have 16" of clearance on the tail on a normal takeoff. 10 degrees nose high is a tail strike. Why? Because the fuselaged has been stretched so much that a Max9 carries as many passengers as a 757-200.

I've seen the autopilot do some weird things that weren't operator error, but I just click it off, turned off the FD, and handflew until the PM sorted it out. It's not cosmic and it's what I did for years before I got here anyway, but this aircraft is not a good first jet for a 250-hour wonder. You cannot rely on the autopilot and FMC. Having said that, I don't fault the pilots for the Max crashes. Yes they could've held the trim wheel or hit the cutout switches, but with no prior knowledge of the threat, or even knowing MCAS existed, in an aircraft without ACARs, when they were fighting the yoke and autothrottles for their lives down low... that's a really tall order.

Piece all of this together and you can see the Max was built based on what minimized cost for the airlines, not what was best for the pilots. That's fine, I get that businesses exist to make money, but the Max crashes, with this, with the issues on the KC46s the AF took delivery of, all paint a picture of a company that's cutting corners and covering tracks. That does make me nervous, but not so nervous I'll go to an aircraft where i have less seniority. I just study the systems harder and try to be that much more observant on walkarounds. I don't have much faith in Boeing, but I do have faith in my company's maintenance. Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top